RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-00853
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM),  Air  Force  Commendation
Medal (AFCM) and his previously awarded AFCM be upgraded to the  MSM,  first
oak leaf cluster (MSM w/1OLC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Having several Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) removed from his  record,
he should  be  entitled  to  the  requested  awards.   The  denials  of  the
requested medals has affected his promotion opportunities.

In support of his request, the  applicant  provided  copies  of  Letters  of
Evaluation (LOEs), a copy of the  AFCM  certificate  and  special  order,  a
letter from AFPC/DPSIDR, and a personal statement.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air  Force  in  the  grade  of
master sergeant (MSgt) having assumed that grade effective and with  a  date
of rank of 1 March 2003.

After  several  AFBCMR  appeals,  the  Board  recommended  denial   of   the
applicant's request that his Enlisted Performance  Reports  (EPRs)  rendered
for the periods closing 9 June 2000 and 9 June  2001  be  removed  from  his
records, by a majority vote.  The Director, Air Force Review  Boards  Agency
agreed with the minority member that corrective  action  was  warranted  and
directed the EPRS be voided and removed from the applicant's records.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial.  DPSIDR states  the  applicant  is  currently
assigned to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.  The applicant states  he  should
be entitled to the  above  requested  decorations  due  to  the  removal  of
several EPRs that were accomplished during the  inclusive  time  periods  of
the requested  decorations.   The  applicant  states  he  should  have  been
awarded  decorations  for  the  following  listed  assignments  between  the
periods of 1997 through 2007:  the AFCM (1997 through 2000) for  an  end  of
tour assignment in Mildenhall AFB, UK; the MSM (2000 through  2003)  for  an
In-Place Consecutive Overseas Tour (IPCOT) - an additional three  year  tour
at Mildenhall as a master sergeant and an upgrade  from  the  AFCM  (awarded
September 2007) to the MSM 1OLC while assigned  to  Tyndall  AFB,  FL.   The
applicant states  the  AFCM  was  awarded  because  he  was  assigned  in  a
technical sergeant position upon PCSing to Eglin AFB, Fl - applicant is  now
assigned to a MSgt position and states his previously  awarded  AFCM  should
be upgraded to the MSM 1OLC.

In  accordance  with  AFI  36-2803,  paragraph  2.2.6,  no   individual   is
automatically entitled  to  an  award  upon  completion  of  an  operational
temporary duty assignment or departure for an assignment.

The applicant was informed by DPSIDR on 24 March 2008, that he must go  back
to the original approval authorities at RAF Mildenhall and Tyndall  AFB  for
entitlement to the MSM basic, MSM 1OLC (upgrade)  and  AFCM  and  allow  for
administrative relief.

DPSIDR also informed the applicant that once a decision  had  been  rendered
by the decorations approval authorities and he still believes  an  injustice
exists,  to  resubmit  his  request  with  the  approval  authority's  final
decision.

The applicant provided  an  MSM  citation,  AFCM  citation  and  a  personal
letter.  No recommendation was included with the citation or final  decision
letter from the original approval authorities.

No official documentation was located or provided  that  verifies  applicant
was submitted for an upgrade or award of any of the  requested  decorations.
Without any documentation from the  applicant's  chain  of  command,  DPSIDR
recommends denial of the requested awards.

The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states  that  on  25 August  2006,
the Air Force Review Board declared the EPRs dated 9 June 2000  and  9  June
2001 void and ordered them removed from his records.  The  requested  medals
were denied by the individuals who wrote the  EPRs  while  assigned  to  RAF
Mildenhall.

Upon the removal of both EPRs his date of rank as  a  MSgt  is  March  2003.
According to the Air Force Review Boards Agency, in order  to  preclude  any
possibility of a promotion injustice, he  should  be  afforded  supplemental
consideration for promotion by all  the  appropriate  selection  boards  for
which both EPRs were a matter of record.

On 17 October 2006, he received a message  from  AFPC/DPPPWM,  which  stated
due to the new date of rank of 1 March 2003, he is also eligible to  receive
supplemental consideration for cycles 05E8 and 06E8.  On 11 August 2006,  he
received a supplemental consideration notice from the AFPC/DPSOE for  cycles
05E8, 06E8, and 07E8, indicating  he  was  not  selected  for  promotion  to
SMSgt.  He had to wait 18 months for a reply from AFPC/DPSOE,  this  is  not
fair.  Per the  SNCO  promotion  board,  the  board  looks  at  performance,
education,  breadth  of   experience,   job   responsibility,   professional
competence, specific achievements, and leadership.

October 2006, he was promoted to MSgt with a date of rank of  1 March  2003.
He was given a December 2006 test date for SMSgt in which  he  never  had  a
fair chance for a promotion to SMSgt.  According to AFPAM 36-2241, the  time
in grade requirement for MSgt to SMSgt is  24  months.   He  never  had  the
opportunity to prepare for SMSgt, his career is still suffering due  to  the
injustices from RAF Mildenhall.

The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an  injustice.   The  applicant’s  contentions  are
duly  noted;  however,  as  noted  by  the  Air  Force  office  of   primary
responsibility, in accordance with  the  instruction  governing  awards  and
decorations, no individual is automatically entitled to  a  decoration  upon
reassignment.  Further, military members are not automatically  entitled  to
a  particular  level  of  award  for  a  particular  period  of  service  or
achievement simply because of their rank or position.  Other  than  his  own
assertions, he has provided no evidence which  would  persuade  us  that  he
would have been recommended for any particular award,  and  if  recommended,
what level  of  award  would  have  been  approved.   It  appears  that  the
applicant believes that because of the earlier correction  to  his  military
records further correction is required to fully  set  right  any  injustices
and take him to the  point  of  what  he  believes  would  make  him  whole.
However, these types of corrections are  not  perfect  and  cannot  be  made
perfect; or at least to the applicant's  satisfaction.   The  correction  of
records process can only  go  so  far  as  to  make  a  person  whole.   The
corrective actions taken to rectify  the  injustices  he  suffered  must  be
accepted as final and conclusive without substantive evidence  showing  that
the additional actions he  is  pursuing  would  have  occurred.   Therefore,
absent evidence from the appropriate officials supporting  his  contentions,
we adopt the rationale expressed by the office of primary responsibility  as
basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  failed  to  sustain  his
burden of proof of the existence of either an error or injustice.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon  the
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not  considered  with  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2008-
00853 in Executive Session on 11 December 2008, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Ms. Gregory A. Parker, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                 Mr. Anthony P. Reardon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 February 2008, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Record.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 17 September 2008.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 September 2008.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 October 2008, w/atchs.




                 GREGORY A. PARKER
                 Panel Chair